Strategic Voting by Trudeau in the 2015 Federal Election

286 posts / 0 new
Last post
Geoff

During an Ontario election campaign during the McGuinty era, I called in to a Hamilton Liberal campaign office, asking if the Liberals thought strategic voting was a good idea (McGuinty had come out asking voters not to "split" the anti-Conservative vote). The campaign worker on the phone said, "Oh yes. That's our policy".

When I asked if McGuinty was going to tell Liberals to support David Christopherson in order not to split the vote, there was dead silence on the other end of the phone, followed by, "No, that's not what we're advocating". I said, "I thought so". I've always remembered that conversation.

terrytowel

Geoff wrote:

When I asked if McGuinty was going to tell Liberals to support David Christopherson in order not to split the vote, there was dead silence on the other end of the phone, followed by, "No, that's not what we're advocating". I said, "I thought so". I've always remembered that conversation.

Well it worked out great for David Christopherson for now he is an MP, deputy leader of the NDP and has that MP pension.

Northern PoV

Geoff wrote:

During an Ontario election campaign during the McGuinty era, I called in to a Hamilton Liberal campaign office, asking if the Liberals thought strategic voting was a good idea (McGuinty had come out asking voters not to "split" the anti-Conservative vote). The campaign worker on the phone said, "Oh yes. That's our policy".

When I asked if McGuinty was going to tell Liberals to support David Christopherson in order not to split the vote, there was dead silence on the other end of the phone, followed by, "No, that's not what we're advocating". I said, "I thought so". I've always remembered that conversation.

Don't worry about the parties .. they all sacrifice country for party.

Individual voters should pay attention, count lawn signs, talk to their neighhbours and carefully consult the more credible local polls....

and vote efficiently on Oct. 19 for the local candidate that they think has the best chance of beating the local CON. All else is madness.

terrytowel

But Nick Nanos brought up an interesting facts this morning on CTV. He said that it is not the platforms that are driving the Liberals numbers. It is who will stop Stephen Harper. At the start of the campaign all three parties were at 30%, and undecided were 10%. He said that is very low for  undecided.

So while the Cons have stayed at 30%, roughly 7 % have moved to the Liberals as they felt that is the party best to stop Stephen Harper. While the undecided still hovers at around 10%.

Bottom line Nanos said the rise of the Liberals are strictly strategic voters looking to Stop Harper.

For another election campaigmn Strategic voting works, and Trudeau didn't even trot out the strategic voting line!

Geoff

If Trudeau's momentum ramps up, and we end up with a Liberal majority, strategic voters will have driven a stake through the heart of electoral reform for at least another four years. Leadnow and others will justifiably be blamed for undermining the movement for PR.

Northern PoV

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You will never hear the argument "vote for me to stop Harper" coming from Trudeau or the Liberal campaign.

It worked for Martin to get a Minority Government in 2004

And now Trudeau is the leader of the party so he makes the decisions and that isn't the route he is taking.

Pondering nailed this at the beginning of the thread.  The rest is nonsense.

Trudeau's success is (chimera or not) is by standing for something positive.  The latest image of Mulcair surrounded by a sea of orange "Stop Harper" signs actually supports strategic voting more than it supports electing the NDP.

There are lots of ridings where strategic voters should vote NDP. Just not as many as Lib ridings.  (Thems the breaks, bad campaign.)

doggerel alert:

Vote Green, if you're mean ...except SGI

Vote Orange ... if the NDP can beat the CON

But if your a dippper  ...in a Lib leaning riding

Take one for the gipper.

PS: This might ease your pain: "It referred to the legacy of bilingualism, multiculturalism, and a Charter of Rights deemed by one study to have become the world's most-emulated constitutional document."  (praise for the father, from the New Yorker)

 

 

Northern PoV

Geoff wrote:

If Trudeau's momentum ramps up, and we end up with a Liberal majority, strategic voters will have driven a stake through the heart of electoral reform for at least another four years. Leadnow and others will justifiably be blamed for undermining the movement for PR.

A Liberal plurality of say 165 would be the best bet for everyone.  It would keep the dippers fingers off the trigger (give the Gov't long enough to tackle voting reform) but keep some control on the Libs to follow through.

A Harper "win" is more plausible than a Lib majority.  By far.  It is the fate we must avoid...

nicky

Strange to say pehaps but we are far more likely to get a progressive government if Harper wins more seats than the Liberals but falls short of a majority or "strong minority."

In theses circumstances the Liberals and NDOP would be compelled by their electorates to copperate in overthrowing Harper. As someone said there would be pitchforks on Parliament Hill if this did not happen.

Whether it is a coalition or an accord or some other arrangemnt the NDP would have considerable influence is shifting the new government to the left.

On the other hand should the Liberals win the most seats with the NDP a poor third, the NDP would have much less influence. The Liberals would not need them to form government. The Liberals would have the wind at their back and expect to squeeze the NDP vote further if a new election was forced. They would be much moe inclined to gravitae back to their traditional centre-right positions.

Northern PoV

Nicky,

I think both parties might be trigger happy* in your scenario.  Back in August I was hoping we'd get a strong NDP plurality ... for the same reason.

We need at least two years, four would be better, to begin to right this ship before we roll the dice again.

(*it won't be comfortable for either party in some odd accord-just-short-of-a-coalition).

 

jjuares

nicky wrote:

Strange to say pehaps but we are far more likely to get a progressive government if Harper wins more seats than the Liberals but falls short of a majority or "strong minority."

In theses circumstances the Liberals and NDOP would be compelled by their electorates to copperate in overthrowing Harper. As someone said there would be pitchforks on Parliament Hill if this did not happen.

Whether it is a coalition or an accord or some other arrangemnt the NDP would have considerable influence is shifting the new government to the left.

On the other hand should the Liberals win the most seats with the NDP a poor third, the NDP would have much less influence. The Liberals would not need them to form government. The Liberals would have the wind at their back and expect to squeeze the NDP vote further if a new election was forced. They would be much moe inclined to gravitae back to their traditional centre-right positions.


Yes, under the expected 130, 110, 80 ( approx.) results the Liberals will govern as a majority. The Conservatives will be going through a leadership race and will not be contesting anything soon. The Liberals will regain their fundraising advantage as individuals start to get in the good graces of the ruling party. The use of deficits means that they can pave the right roads. Liberal corruption usually takes a term or two in office to become public, although with recent events it may turn out that it may come to the foreground sooner with this government. It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals until we have some ethical transgressions.

Northern PoV

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

Sean in Ottawa

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

Holy Bull

The Liberal government fell because of its own sleaze.

Discussed here often the NDP did not have the seats to save it.

Northern PoV

OK the Layton dig was an attempt to give historical context.  I get that you have a different tribal narrative, so sorry I raised it cause it gave you a dead cat defence. 

Have you no shame? 

"It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals "

 

Sean in Ottawa

Northern PoV wrote:

OK the Layton dig was an attempt to give historical context.  I get that you have a different tribal narrative, so sorry I raised it cause it gave you a dead cat defence. 

Have you no shame? 

"It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals "

 

Sorry Math is not a tribal narrative.

Really fed up with the Liberal bullshit on this site now and yes it is showing.

And the so-called historical context is a Liberal lie unsupported by the cold hard numbners.

The Liberal government fell due to LIBERALS resigning in disgust due to the LIBERAL scandal causing the balance of power to shift.

This is not a narrative this is an event resulting in a mathematical change in the House.

All the posturing that came later is immaterial.

Unionist

Sean, we've discussed endlessly the balance of seats in the House at that time. No doubt, the math supports your conclusion. The NDP on their own could not have determined the outcome.

But historians may also be interested in the Judy Wasylycia-Leis / Paul Summerville phony scandal accusation which literally turned the electoral tide on a dime. That was also the campaign where Layton suddenly shifted gears and publicly supported the Clarity Act, and where the NDP suddenly became crime-fighters after the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto. And where, after the child care agreements with the provinces got halted by the defeat of the government (a mere decade after the Liberals' solemn pledge), Layton decided not to oppose Harper's treacherous $100 per month subsidy (because, Canadians are too stupid to understand if you try to take free money from their pockets to create an actual, like, social service).

Yes, you got it - the NDP moved to the right in order to win votes - and spent all their time attacking the Liberals, for the Liberals' many real crimes, and a few imagined ones as well.

So perhaps there are some lessons that could have been learned. Next time, maybe.

Speaking of the Clarity Act - would have been nice if the 2015 election platform included a promise to repeal it or replace it or anything. Nope. Too risky, right?

jjuares

Northern PoV wrote:

OK the Layton dig was an attempt to give historical context.  I get that you have a different tribal narrative, so sorry I raised it cause it gave you a dead cat defence. 

Have you no shame? 

"It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals "

 


See this is why I don't like the Liberals here. You omitted the last part of my sentence not even using the correct punctuation ( ...) to signify that you had omitted a phrase and a carefully chosen ones that that. Here is the actual sentence, "
It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals until we have some ethical transgressions." Notice the last part on ethics. That was an indirect reference to what happened to Martin. Left wing and right wing parties may not agree on much but they can vote
together to bring down corrupt governments. That is why I included the last part. You knowingly and intentionally omitted that phrase didn't you? And that was to make your little demonstrably dishonest point. Here is a word for you to look up, integrity.

Northern PoV

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP> See this is why I don't like the Liberals here. You omitted the last part of my sentence not even using the correct punctuation ( ...) to signify that you had omitted a phrase and a carefully chosen ones that that.<SNIP>

Nice try.  When I quote selectively (for a purpose) I indicate that... my quick reply to Sean left off my orig quote:

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

 

 

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

Playing with fire (Unionist makes a good case above) got us Harper.  And you are already plotting to kill the guy who (might) vanquish Harper.

You have NO shame.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the strategic voting concept begins at the very top. some parties vie to be more to the right while others to the left. still others drum up fear. this is all strategic to capture voters. but it’s all a crap shoot to gain power. but voters using it..well aren’t they being led down the garden path.

..i've voted strategic all my life and i’ve turned 67 this year. that’s a lot of strategic voting. i've had to. the primary purpose of parties is to get elected not make a better world. i don't want free trade deals that begins with govs and corps meeting in secret in plush hotels or resorts. the result is populations having almost zero input or having any say on it’s implementation. at best we get politicians that say that they would get a better deal but nary a word about the corrupt and anti-democratic process. this applies across the board.

..the parties themselves are only minimally democratic. how can we expect them to act any other way when they can't even make their parties democratic.

eta: exception qs.

terrytowel

In terms of election reform one idea being floated around is ranked balloting. Where it is not winner takes all. But the person must win a majority of first and second choices on the ballot.

In that sense wouldn't that shut out the Conservatives in 2/3 of the country? And avoid splits?

Northern PoV

terrytowel wrote:

In terms of election reform one idea being floated around is ranked balloting. Where it is not winner takes all. But the person must win a majority of first and second choices on the ballot.

In that sense wouldn't that shut out the Conservatives in 2/3 of the country? And avoid splits?

First, second, third choices and beyond. 

But die hard *PR folks don't like ranked ballots. Go figure.  

It is the currently preferred Lib option but they've promised a commission to study & recommend a voting alternatives.

Many think PR will fix everything.  To cure that notion, just look at NZ or even the G&M projections under PR for 2015: same 1,2,3 predictions just more seats for the Bloc & Greens - like that helps.  Corporate Media control trumps the voting system.

*PR has lost every referendum in Canada as it has been poorly concieved and even more poorly promoted.

jjuares

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP> See this is why I don't like the Liberals here. You omitted the last part of my sentence not even using the correct punctuation ( ...) to signify that you had omitted a phrase and a carefully chosen ones that that.<SNIP>

Nice try.  When I quote selectively (for a purpose) I indicate that... my quick reply to Sean left off my orig quote:

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

 

 

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

Playing with fire (Unionist makes a good case above) got us Harper.  And you are already plotting to kill the guy who (might) vanquish Harper.

You have NO shame.


Now when I talk to you about ethics I am probably speaking to you in a language foreign to you, but here goes. Just because you write " snip" doesn't give you the moral right to omitt phrases which change the meaning of what someone writes. I purposefully added added that phrase as both a historical reference and as a specific case of when these two parties could bring down a corrupt government. Oh the irony is rich here. I am talking to a Liberal of his own ethical transgression and how these transgressions in general may lead to a Liberal downfall and he/she either doesn't get it or refuses to acknowledge it. If the Liberal government demonstrates the same standards as you they might as well order the moving vans to ship Justin's furniture out of 24 Sussex at the same time he moves in.